I am always impressed by people who can draw a wide fresco of general
subjects, like the evolution of the computer industry. I am somewhat less
impressed when I happen to know some of the details, and they are wrongly
pictured. It saps my naive faith in things which are expressed so
authoritatively. What Geoffrey writes about IBM is at best his own
interpretation of the facts.
Shalom (Regards), Mati
Bidi Architect
Globalization Center Of Competency - Bidirectional Scripts
IBM Israel
Phone: +972 2 5888802 Fax: +972 2 5870333 Mobile: +972 52
2554160
"Geoffrey S. Mendelson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
13/01/2008 18:04
Please respond to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To
"Nadav Har'El" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc
aviv sher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [email protected]
Subject
Re: [Job Offer and a byte more] PHP programmer and CTO
On Sun, Jan 13, 2008 at 05:31:04PM +0200, Nadav Har'El wrote:
>
> Actually, your example proves you wrong! Do you think that Google would
have
> grown to the size they are if they kept the same technology they had 10
years
> ago? In those 10 years, Google adopted completely new technologies that
they
> didn't have before - they devised new ways to manage clusters (which
they
> didn't need when their cluster was just 50 machines), new filesystems,
new
> ways to show interactive pages ("ajax"), new concepts for email (like
the
> whopping 1 GB mail quota), new ideas and software for advertising, and
much
> much more. Someobody had to direct the company to go in that direction,
and
> not - say - to the Orace/IIS direction you mentioned.
Thank you, you just made my point. :-) Google succeded because they chose
a technology that could be expanded to do what they want. If they had
chosen
Windows NT server, or VMS clusters they would have failed miserably.
If they had a second rate CTO, or were stuck in another technology, they
would never have grown to the size they are. How many "new idea" email
programs and companies have failed in the last 30 yeas?
> So it's silly to think that a company only decides technology issues
when
> it is formed. Maybe what you are thinking about are these "dot com"
startups,
> which were formed with some technology and indeed never lived long
enough to
> switch or update their technlogy.
Lots of them were much older too, for example, IBM which nearly died when
they
tried to drop their mainframe computers and get everyone to buy an AS400.
DEC when they tried to push the Alpha over the VAX. Silicon Graphics when
they tried to switch to Windows NT over UNIX, and Apple which joined with
IBM and switched to the PPC chip.
IBM had enough business to keep going and eventually recovered and a third
procduct, the RS/6000 took over while they still sell mainframes (Z/390)
and the AS400 is long gone.
DEC lost the battle of the MIPS. Silicon Graphics just faded and Apple
eventually became bankrupt and the board gave the company to Steve Jobs
and Next, before they crashed, and so on.
> > Both are certainly capble of doing the job with as much tailoring as
Google
> > had to apply to what they do use, but when did Google reach the point
they
> > could not have switched?
>
> Never. If Google were convinced today that Oracle/IIS had some clear
benefits
> to them, they could switch to them, at least in new installations (which
in
> an exponentially growing business, is almost the same as switching
everything).
> Obviously, they didn't find Oracle or IIS of any benefit to them,
because
> they could do the same - or more - with free software without having to
pay
> royalties (paying royalties for hundreds of thousands of copies for a
piece
> of software is damn expensive).
Again proves my point.
> I work in a company that has existed for over a hundred years. It still
> hasn't reached that point. We are still always on the lookout on how to
> change, what are the new technology trends, and how we can leverage new
> technlogy to become more efficient, before all our competition does it.
> If a company stops doing this, it will go out of business quickly.
What company is that?
> > How much equity are your really willing to give this stranger (i.e.
> > not a founder) to be CTO? 5%? 10%? any more and you risk diluting
> > your control and making your seed investor nervous.
> >
> > When the company gets to a "short exit", i.e. buyout in 2-3 years or
> > IPO, the 10% will be about 2%. If you go for the long term exit, which
> > someone is espousing in an article in Friday's Jerusalem Post
(presented
> > as an op-ed, but really a free ad for his "late stage" investment
fund),
> > that will be down to less than 1%.
>
> In 1999, when I was looking for a job, the "jive" from prospective
employers
> I interviewed ( :-) ) was always the same - I would get a percentage of
the
> company (usually at the order of 1%), and since it is public knowledge
that
> every IPO is at least 1 billion dollars, even after dilution I was
sitting
> on several million dollars, almost guranteed. Yeah, right...
Yes, I keep telling people who ask for business advice NOT to include a
stock option plan as anything but a speculative gift. People will no
longer
fall for that "jive" as you put it.
Geoff.
--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, Jerusalem, Israel [EMAIL PROTECTED] N3OWJ/4X1GM
IL Voice: (07)-7424-1667 U.S. Voice: 1-215-821-1838
Visit my 'blog at http://geoffstechno.livejournal.com/
=================================================================
To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command
echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
